Harm Reduction and Treatment Among People at High Risk of Overdose.

Importance: Rates of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids remain high, increasingly involve stimulants combined with opioids, and are increasing rapidly in racially and ethnically minoritized communities, yet little is known about access to harm reduction and treatment services in these groups. Objective: To characterize access and barriers to harm reduction and treatment in a racially and ethnically diverse population of people who use drugs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional telephone survey of people recruited from 39 treatment, harm reduction, and social service organizations in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; Flint and Detroit, Michigan; and statewide in New Jersey was conducted from January 30 to July 28, 2023. Adults who used cocaine, methamphetamine, or opioids in the past 30 days called a study hotline and completed an interview in English or Spanish. Exposures: Overdose experience, drug types used (opioids only, stimulants only, and polysubstance), and social risk factors (eg, financial instability and criminal legal involvement). Main Outcomes and Measures: Recent use of any harm reduction services, fentanyl test strips, naloxone possession, treatment, and self-reported barriers to services. Results: Of the total sample of 1240 adults, 486 (39.2%) were Black non-Hispanic, 183 (14.8%) were Hispanic, and 464 (37.4%) were White non-Hispanic. In the past 30 days, 826 individuals (66.6%) were polysubstance users, 135 (10.9%) used only opioids, and 279 (22.5%) used only stimulants. A total of 349 respondents (28.1%) experienced a prior-year overdose. Compared with those without a prior-year overdose, people with overdose were more likely to possess naloxone (80.7% vs 68.2%; P < .001), possess fentanyl test strips (36.8% vs 23.5%; P < .001), and use harm reduction services (63.4% vs 53.0%; P = .003), while differences in treatment use were nonsignificant (52.0% vs 46.6%; P = .24). Among stimulant-only users, 51.4% possessed naloxone compared with 77.3% of opioid-only users (P < .001) and 77.6% of polysubstance users (P < .001), with similar disparities in fentanyl test strip possession. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of people who used drugs in the past 30 days, findings highlighted low use of harm reduction and treatment services among people who use stimulants. Additional communication regarding their importance may help increase the use of the services amidst a rapidly changing drug supply.

Attitudes and beliefs about Vermont's 2021 buprenorphine decriminalization law among residents who use illicit opioids.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, Vermont removed all criminal penalties for possessing 224mg or less of buprenorphine. METHODS: Vermont residents (N=474) who used illicit opioid drugs or received treatment for opioid use disorder in the past 90 days were recruited for a mixed-methods survey on the health and criminal legal effects of decriminalization. Topics assessed included: motivations for using non-prescribed buprenorphine, awareness of and support for decriminalization, and criminal legal system experiences involving buprenorphine. We examined the frequencies of quantitative measures and qualitatively summarized themes from free-response questions. RESULTS: Three-quarters of respondents (76%) reported lifetime use of non-prescribed buprenorphine. 80% supported decriminalization, but only 28% were aware buprenorphine was decriminalized in Vermont. Respondents described using non-prescribed buprenorphine to alleviate withdrawal symptoms and avoid use of other illicit drugs. 18% had been arrested while in buprenorphine, with non-White respondents significantly more likely to report such arrests (15% v 33%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Decriminalization of buprenorphine may reduce unnecessary criminal legal system involvement, but its health impact was limited by low awareness at the time of our study.

The influence of response mode on study results: offering cigarette smokers a choice of postal or online completion of a survey.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether offering online data collection to study participants affects compliance or produces bias. OBJECTIVE: To compare response rates, baseline characteristics, test-retest reliability, and outcomes between cigarette smokers who chose to complete a survey by mail versus those who chose to complete it online. METHODS: We surveyed cigarette smokers who intended to stop smoking within the next 30 days to determine barriers to calling a smoking quit line. Participants were offered the choice of completing a paper version of the survey sent through the mail or an online version at a password-protected website. Participants were called 2 months later to determine if they had made a quit attempt and/or called a smoking quit line since the baseline survey. We compared characteristics and outcomes among those who chose postal versus online completion. We measured test-retest reliability of the baseline survey by re-surveying a semi-random sample of participants within 10 days of the original survey. RESULTS: Of 697 eligible respondents to newspaper ads in 12 US cities, 438 (63%) chose to receive a mailed paper survey and 259 (37%) chose an Internet survey. Survey return rates were the same for the 2 modes (92% versus 92%, P = .82). Online respondents were younger (mean of 46 versus 51 years old for postal, P < .001), more likely to be white (76% versus 62%, P < .001), less likely to be African American (18% versus 30%, P < .001), more highly educated (34% college graduate versus 23%, P < .001), more likely to intend to stop smoking in the next 30 days (47% definitely versus 30%, P < .001), and more likely to have heard of a smoking quit line (51% versus 40%, P = .008). Participants did not differ on gender (54% female for online versus 55% for postal, P = .72) or cigarettes smoked per day (mean of 19 versus 21, P = .30). Online respondents had slightly fewer missing items on the 79-item survey (mean of 1.7% missing versus 2.3%, P = .02). Loss to follow-up at 2 months was similar (16% for online and 15% for postal, P = .74). There was no significant difference between online and postal respondents in having called a smoking quit line during the 2-month follow-up period (20% versus 24%, P = .22) or in having made a quit attempt (76% versus 79%, P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette smokers who chose to complete a survey using the Internet differed in several ways from those who chose mailed surveys. However, more importantly, online and postal responses produced similar outcomes.

Cognitive barriers to calling a smoking quitline.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined cognitive barriers that might prevent cigarette smokers who are interested in quitting from calling a smoking quitline. METHODS: Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we developed a 53-item inventory of possible cognitive barriers to quitline access. A total of 641 daily smokers who reported high intentions to stop smoking in the next 30 days completed this inventory and were then prompted to call a toll-free smoking quitline (800-QUIT NOW) on 3 occasions. Two months later, they completed a follow-up phone interview to assess use of the quitline, quit attempts, and smoking status. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the barrier items revealed a 5-factor solution: stigma, low appraisal of the service, no need for assistance, poor fit with the service, and privacy concerns. Endorsements of barrier factors were generally low. Although several barrier factor scores predicted concurrent intentions to call a quitline in the near future, none prospectively predicted calling the quitline by 2-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Cognitive barriers to use of quitlines remain elusive.

Attempts to stop or reduce marijuana use in non-treatment seekers.

Daily marijuana smokers (n=19) who intended to quit or reduce in the next month on their own called a phone each night for 28 nights to report marijuana use and reported intentions to change at the end of each week. Outcomes did not differ between those who initially planned to reduce vs. quit in the next month. Participants averaged three attempts to reduce and one attempt to quit during the 28 days. Participants reduced on 11% and abstained on 14% of days. Most participants were successful in reducing or abstaining on half or more of the days they attempted; however, only four participants (21%) reduced > or =50% for > or =7 consecutive days and only two (10%) abstained for that long. Abstinence or reduction did not appear to change alcohol or caffeine use. We conclude: (a) initial intentions are poor predictors of outcomes, (b) most users make multiple, short-lived attempts to change, (c) reduction was as common as abstinence, (d) many attempts to change are initially successful but few persist, and (e) other drug use does not appear to worsen with marijuana reduction or abstinence.

A randomized, controlled trial of NRT-aided gradual vs. abrupt cessation in smokers actively trying to quit.

Most smoking cessation programs advise abrupt rather than gradual cessation. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of gradual cessation (n=297) vs. abrupt cessation (n=299) vs. minimal treatment (n=150) among smokers who wanted to quit now and preferred to quit gradually. Participants were recruited via newspaper and radio advertisements. The gradual and abrupt conditions received five phone calls (total=90 min) and the minimal treatment condition received two calls (25 min total). The gradual condition received nicotine lozenge (via mail) to reduce smoking prior to their quit date. After the quit day, all participants received lozenge. The primary outcome was prolonged abstinence from 2 weeks post-quit day through 6 months. Prior to the quit day, the gradual condition decreased cigarettes/day by 54%, whereas the other two conditions decreased by 1% and 5%. Prolonged abstinence rates (CO<10 ppm) did not differ among gradual, abrupt and minimal treatment conditions (4%, 7% and 5%), nor did 7-day point prevalence rates (7%, 11% and 11%). Fewer smokers in the gradual condition (48%) made a quit attempt than in the abrupt (64%) or minimal (60%) conditions (p<.001). In the gradual condition, every week delay to the quit date increased the probability of lapsing by 19% (p<.001). We conclude that among smokers who want to stop gradually in the near future, gradual cessation with nicotine pre-treatment does not produce higher quit rates than abrupt cessation. One liability of gradual reduction may be that it allows smokers to delay their quit date.